Zhang Yong, Sun Feng-Ling, Zang Tong
Department of Urology, General Hospital of Beijing Military Region, PLA, Beijing 100700, China.
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008 May;14(5):451-3.
To compare the effect of the combined therapy of medication with local hyperthermia with that of the simple local hyperthermia therapy in the treatment of pain symptoms of chronic prostatitis (CP).
Seventy-six CP patients aged 18-48 (mean 29.2 +/- 3.8) years, with the disease course of 3.5-180 (mean 8.0 +/- 1.2) months and NIH-CPSI pain score > or = 14, were equally randomized into a treatment group and a control. The former was treated by applying the CRS-2280E extraorgan short-wave capacitance field hyperthermia system to the prostate once an hour every other day for 7 times, combined with anal administration of 1 Qianliean suppository and oral doxazosin 4 mg before bedtime every night for 2 weeks, while the latter underwent simple local hyperthermia. All the patients were scored on NIH-CPSI and the therapeutic results were compared between the two groups.
The pre- and post-treatment NIH-CPSI scores were (23.9 +/- 3.8) and (5.2 +/- 3.1) (P < 0.01) in the treatment goup and (24.5 +/- 4.3) and (11.6 +/- 3.4) (P < 0.01) in the control; the pre- and post-treatment scores on NIH-CPSI pain symptoms were (16.5 +/- 1.9) and (3.1 +/- 2.2) (P < 0.01) in the former and (15.9 +/- 1.7) and (8.2 +/- 2.0) (P < 0.01) in the latter. The total score on NIH-CPSI and that on NIH-CPSI pain symptoms were both significantly higher in the treatment group than in the control (P < 0.01). Within the treatment group, the score on NIH-CPSI pain symptoms was even more significantly improved in patients with the first attacks than in those already treated by other means (P < 0.01). No adverse effects were observed in either of the groups.
Both the combined therapy of medication with local hyperthermia and simple local hyperthermia are effective, safe and tolerable in the treatment of CP pain symptoms, and the former is even more desirable, particularly for those with the first attacks of the symptoms.
比较药物联合局部热疗与单纯局部热疗治疗慢性前列腺炎(CP)疼痛症状的效果。
将76例年龄在18 - 48岁(平均29.2±3.8岁)、病程3.5 - 180个月(平均8.0±1.2个月)且美国国立卫生研究院慢性前列腺炎症状指数(NIH - CPSI)疼痛评分≥14分的CP患者,随机分为治疗组和对照组,每组各38例。治疗组采用CRS - 2280E型体外短波电容场热疗系统对前列腺进行治疗,隔日1次,每次1小时,共7次,同时联合每晚睡前肛门塞入1粒前列安栓及口服多沙唑嗪4 mg,疗程2周;对照组仅采用单纯局部热疗。对所有患者进行NIH - CPSI评分,并比较两组的治疗效果。
治疗组治疗前、后NIH - CPSI评分分别为(23.9±3.8)分和(5.2±3.1)分(P < 0.01);对照组治疗前、后NIH - CPSI评分分别为(24.5±4.3)分和(11.6±3.4)分(P < 0.01)。治疗组治疗前、后NIH - CPSI疼痛症状评分分别为(16.5±1.9)分和(3.1±2.2)分(P < 0.01);对照组治疗前、后NIH - CPSI疼痛症状评分分别为(15.9±1.7)分和(8.2±2.0)分(P < 0.01)。治疗组NIH - CPSI总分及疼痛症状评分均显著高于对照组(P < 0.01)。在治疗组中,初发患者NIH - CPSI疼痛症状评分改善程度显著优于曾接受过其他治疗的患者(P < 0.01)。两组均未观察到不良反应。
药物联合局部热疗与单纯局部热疗治疗CP疼痛症状均有效、安全且耐受性良好,前者效果更佳,尤其对于症状初发患者。